Heathrow Airport Third Runway: now watch how the Greenazis get (really really) nasty from now on.


They will. I bet you 3p.

David Davis

Guido has a pretty model doing her stuff (actually I think this is the better link) (so do we sometimes here) called Babz something or other, and who is supporting the plan.

The only thing Libertarians ought to be concerned about here is the property rights of the people – and there will be a number, inevitably – whose homes and land will be taken and who will have to be displaced. This is the only issue of importance.

All that the Greenazis are concerned about is that Britain, a land which they hate and want dead, for showing the up to be the hideous and obscene people-murderers which they are and have always been, should not be able to profit from what the next century’s people will all want to do.

I expect Tony Hollick will oppose me in the comments, on some jurisprudential pretext or other….if you do not, Tony, I take it all back!

The problem of London is that it’s in the probably least-bad place it could be. Imagine if it was in Birmingham, or Liverpool. Geography, mountains and landforms would be against it. Then imagine a slightly less police-statist Britain emerging from the recession.

The next problem is where do you put the seven or eight or ten airports that, Al Gore’s demise willing, it will need. If not that many, then which ones do you expand?

The only issue we should worry about is property rights. And that does NOT include “film” “stars” and “pop” “singers” who abuse the notion of personal property on purpse, because the MSM will let them get away with it, and they can afford expensive (lefty) lawyers. (Why are most lawyers socialists? Discuss.)

About these ads

3 responses to “Heathrow Airport Third Runway: now watch how the Greenazis get (really really) nasty from now on.

  1. (Disclaimer – I live under the flight path and couldn’t care less about the expansion as it affects me)

    There’s numourous problems for the libertarian, not just the property which will be stolen.
    There’s harm to existing property not being taken – quite how far the owners of the airport should go in compensation is debatable amongst libertarians, although direct damage should be compensated for – whether it will is another matter.

    Most importantly is that this is not a project of a private company, it is a project of the state using BAA as a proxy (in so far as you can call BAA a private company, which isn’t far).
    BAA is a beneficiary of the state, of taxation and regulation.
    This expansion would probably not exist if it weren’t for state interference in all areas of our lives – if it did then it would be a private venture and would be differently handled.

  2. Yes of course.

    So what do you propose?

  3. We live in an imperfect world. We have but a short time to live, I’m 57 too, and most people want to get out of this mess and use fuel to burn, and get people flying here to buy and sell things.